Talk:UDF-RPR
Split Surely it would be more logical that should be replaced with articles for the political parties UDF and RDP? Coalitions aren't as much of a deal as its constituent parties. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:02, October 30, 2016 (UTC) : I think it would make more sense to have this kept to the Picard family album page because there is really no point in elaborating on background information by creating another page of background information. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 02:09, January 1, 2017 (UTC) Well, this is considered to be unused production material, on which rw articles can be created. You've been away for a few years, and I got to say consensus has just shifted in that period. (I personally much prefer the current situation, for no other reason than how clear it now is what can get an article, vs the chaotic, confusing, and sometimes even contradictory set of precedents resulting from the case-by-case approach of the past) More practically, you'd be surprised how many topics the album covers. The background section at the album page is pretty heavy already, I think it would be better to keep that a general summary as much as possible and go into detail elsewhere. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:32, January 3, 2017 (UTC) : That is a terrible answer. My being away is irrelevant. You've presumably been here all along and you are using a on a talk page. C'mon, get with the times. Consensus doesn't mean the results are correct, and quite frankly, my being away did not create a black hole in what should and should not ultimately be considered common sense. Anybody with an ounce of sense isn't going to be traipsing around MA looking for clues to piece together the Picard family album's contents. 'Let's read a background section, then click a link to go to another background article (UDF) that exists solely to regurgitate the exact same information you just read, then click a second link to (RPR) that is a 99.8% reproduction of the previous page just read, but is disguised to look as if you're reading something entirely new and relevant.' There are limits on what should and shouldn't make sense around here, and this isn't one of them. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 15:31, June 19, 2017 (UTC) I guess you've got me: that's exactly how I like traipsing around MA, so I must not have an ounce of sense and therefore my answer is indeed terrible. :D But seriously, hopping around from one article to another, that's just how a wiki works. What's changed in the last few years (and I was genuinly only trying to bring you up to date, not trying to use your absence as an excuse to declare your opinions irrelevant) is that it was more firmly decided that background material needs to be documented, and that organizing it in a web of articles makes the most sense given the amount of it and the amount of it that can't easily be put anywhere else then an episode page (where it's hard to find). That's the consensus, and if the idea that it defies common sense didn't prevail then that's too bad, because ultimately consensus is what we have to go by. Further issues you've brought up aren't unique to this stuff, but are merely the normal downsides of going the wiki route with this encyclopedia. It doesn't make sense to reject that in favour of a long glossary, but just for a single class of info. Also given the amount of text in the clipping, once someone bothers transcribing and translating it I doubt that the two articles will still be 99.8% the same, and they'll be beter integrated in the web we're building too. I like by the way, I feel that it's a cleaner way of breaking non-idented comments into paragraphs then just leaving a line. Ok, maybe that makes me an excentric or something, but still that comment verges on an ad hominem argument. Then again, I've used this comment to try to wind you up by making the formating visible, so as long as you can see the humor in that then as far as I'm concerned we're even :p-- Capricorn (talk) 21:31, June 26, 2017 (UTC) ::I happen to agree with Alan on this one so I'm afraid I'll have to oppose a split. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:35, February 3, 2018 (UTC) But Alan didn't so much oppose a split as he advocated for a merge instead. So with all due respect, maybe you ought to clarify your exact opinion on the issue a bit better. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:39, February 3, 2018 (UTC) ::I'm sure you didn't intend to but your reply to my comment did come across as a little belligerent. That said, I don't wish to dwell on the matter. From what I have read (and I apologise in advance if I have got this wrong) you wish to split the article into two separate pages for both "UDF" and "RPR". Alan opposed this on the basis that they would contain the same information from the same source about the same very minor subject and to top it off this is a non-canon article anyway so it's written from a production point of view. His rationale was that there is no point to create two production PoV articles from this information when one will do just fine. His position appears to be to keep the article the way it is. As I say, unless I am mistaken that is what is written above so when I say I agree with Alan's comments, I agree with Alan's comments. I just didn't see the point in reiterating what he has already said and creating another wall of text repeating the same rationale. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:59, February 3, 2018 (UTC) I don't really understand what I did to sound belligerent, but whatever it was, I'm sorry, I didn't meant anything like that. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:51, February 4, 2018 (UTC)